Your favorite altitude

Nomen Nescio writes:

My wris****ch has an altimeter. I know EXACTLY what cabin pressure
is.

Then you know that all airlines are not flying with cabin pressures of 5000
feet. The cabin pressure depends on the aircraft's altitude, the maximum
pressure differential for the aircraft and any climb or descent in progress.

I've never seen it. Lowest I've seen is 5000 ft. Normal seems to run about
5500. Assuming a 30k+ altitude.

Don't assume a 30K+ altitude. Many flights take place below that.

Never used except in an emergency.

That's not what the FARs say.

Irrelevant.

Highly relevant when the major effect of hypoxia is visual impairment.

If you're a fat smoker in poor cardio-vascular health, you may notice a
difference.

A lot of pilots in good health notice a difference when they take oxygen at
5000 feet or above. But don't worry, it's not illegal to skip the oxygen at
5000 feet even though it may cause visual impairment, just as it's not illegal
to smoke even though it may cause cancer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I have watched this thread from the peanut gallery and have to say
that here is yet another example of MXS running folks around in
circles chasing their tails, and his. It started off well
enough...with real pilots doing their best to answer his (perhaps
bizarre) question. Instead of typing "thank you" and moving on, he
casually shifts the subject by taking bits and parts of your replies
out of context, becoming argumentative, and ultimately insulting...not
to anyone in particular, but to pilots as a group or some sub-group of
pilots who fit his labels. Many of you then think you are obligated
to respond to his mis-quotes and insults. Round and round you go....

Eventually this thread will die out and MXS will start over with
another topic. Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.

Sorry.....but after 80+ messages, I couldn't sit on my hands any
longer. I will now return to the peanut gallery and observe.

--Jeff

Jb,

Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.


You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"EridanMan" wrote in news:1176350711.848357.286000
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

And, this is just my personal practice, I _do not_ vouch for it beyond
that, and If anyone has an issue with it, I'm interested to learn why.

My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be doing
it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Try some night flying with and without.

You first.

Judah writes:

You first.

I don't take risks. I might try it with, but not without.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gene Seibel writes:
Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
fly a little higher at night.

From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa to
the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but perhaps not
very interesting scenery-wise.


A bit like the interior of your head.



Bertie

On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gary writes:
So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?

It cannot climb without slowing down. It cannot speed up without descending.
These are serious constraints.


onlz in your tiny little mind.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gene Seibel writes:
Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
fly a little higher at night.

From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa
to
the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not
sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
perhaps not
very interesting scenery-wise.


A bit like the interior of your head.



Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
uncontrolled airspace.

On Apr 13, 9:13 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Jb,

Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.

You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

and you all are obviously having fun being played.